On August 4, 2024, veterans of indie media with combined experience totaling nearly 80 years came together to discuss the ramping up of political propaganda surrounding Donald Trump...
I am perplexed every day when I think "am I the only one who sees this?" Representative democracy is the problem, not democracy itself. Although what is the definition of it? 100% democracy is direct democracy which we can have in jiff now that we have the techinology right in our back pocket. This would be so easy to do today. Why does anyone think they need someone to represent them? They can read and write? And there is no need to continue with the endless bureaucracy that currently exists. We only need a website that enables us to make proposals and vote on other's proposals and get a precise number of those who are for or against. Of course the districting has to also be precise as you can't have 20,000 in one electorate and 50,000 in another because that means some people's vote is worth more than others. Peer-to-peer is how we must go now. That is the new paradigm that we could be building.
I don't think democracy is a good idea at all... You can't have individual rights and "democracy" or any kind of "government". Everyone should have the right to vote every day with their wallet and their time... Want to send your kid to a school that reflects your values... pay for what you want... Want to help the poor? volunteer your time or donate to a charity you trust...
Democracy to me means having your say. There ought to be more words for it than just that political context. Sure you vote with your wallet but money itself is enslaving, it's not freeing (if it is issued by banks) Voting with your wallet doesn't apply to many things. If someone wants to put a 5G tower in your street, not paying for their service won't cut it. That's when we need to be able to vote to not have it installed. We need systems for this. It's so easy, I find it difficult to understand why it isn't touted and it's even disputed because it means everyone is empowered. And now we have the means with digital tech to find out this information (of how many people want or don't want something)
Notice that women are still taking a back seat in having their say, in contributing their perspectibves for the new world? It's not enough to have one woman appear (who usually is in the background and not listened to very much anyway). The ratios have to be around 50/50 (without being anal). All we every hear from is men's perspectives and this is what is killing us because we are already in a totally (predatory) male construct. Politics, money, concepts such as worship, hierarchy, ownership, connection to nature (and many others) come without the balanced view of the other side - the female side. Just notice the ratios of men speaking and women speaking and notice how women back down if they conflict with male tropes, and women feel they are taking too much time to speak (even though they are the only one holding up a different perspective), and how men often say they are running out of time, or they need to give everyone a chance at speaking - right after a woman has spoke? And rarely do men expand on what the woman says?. Just notice. You'll be amazed at how stock this pattern is. All it takes is for women to be invited to speak when there is a shortage of the ratio. Don't forget, men kept women out of everything and traumatized them to death. So it is going to take some repairing and that can be done by simply noticing and inviting the women to give their view.. It will be beautiful. Women are the conduits to nature so we are really missing out not utilizing the wisdom of women. Indeed, we cannot advance further without women's matched resonance. It cannot just be men's views as this will keep us stymied folks.
sorry I'm not used to posting. To me a few seem to hint at narratives they push but won't say directly. Also they purport to know about timing and info they can't possibly know and therefore seem to draw conclusions. Impatience? We're playing a long game here.
I am perplexed every day when I think "am I the only one who sees this?" Representative democracy is the problem, not democracy itself. Although what is the definition of it? 100% democracy is direct democracy which we can have in jiff now that we have the techinology right in our back pocket. This would be so easy to do today. Why does anyone think they need someone to represent them? They can read and write? And there is no need to continue with the endless bureaucracy that currently exists. We only need a website that enables us to make proposals and vote on other's proposals and get a precise number of those who are for or against. Of course the districting has to also be precise as you can't have 20,000 in one electorate and 50,000 in another because that means some people's vote is worth more than others. Peer-to-peer is how we must go now. That is the new paradigm that we could be building.
I don't think democracy is a good idea at all... You can't have individual rights and "democracy" or any kind of "government". Everyone should have the right to vote every day with their wallet and their time... Want to send your kid to a school that reflects your values... pay for what you want... Want to help the poor? volunteer your time or donate to a charity you trust...
Democracy to me means having your say. There ought to be more words for it than just that political context. Sure you vote with your wallet but money itself is enslaving, it's not freeing (if it is issued by banks) Voting with your wallet doesn't apply to many things. If someone wants to put a 5G tower in your street, not paying for their service won't cut it. That's when we need to be able to vote to not have it installed. We need systems for this. It's so easy, I find it difficult to understand why it isn't touted and it's even disputed because it means everyone is empowered. And now we have the means with digital tech to find out this information (of how many people want or don't want something)
Notice that women are still taking a back seat in having their say, in contributing their perspectibves for the new world? It's not enough to have one woman appear (who usually is in the background and not listened to very much anyway). The ratios have to be around 50/50 (without being anal). All we every hear from is men's perspectives and this is what is killing us because we are already in a totally (predatory) male construct. Politics, money, concepts such as worship, hierarchy, ownership, connection to nature (and many others) come without the balanced view of the other side - the female side. Just notice the ratios of men speaking and women speaking and notice how women back down if they conflict with male tropes, and women feel they are taking too much time to speak (even though they are the only one holding up a different perspective), and how men often say they are running out of time, or they need to give everyone a chance at speaking - right after a woman has spoke? And rarely do men expand on what the woman says?. Just notice. You'll be amazed at how stock this pattern is. All it takes is for women to be invited to speak when there is a shortage of the ratio. Don't forget, men kept women out of everything and traumatized them to death. So it is going to take some repairing and that can be done by simply noticing and inviting the women to give their view.. It will be beautiful. Women are the conduits to nature so we are really missing out not utilizing the wisdom of women. Indeed, we cannot advance further without women's matched resonance. It cannot just be men's views as this will keep us stymied folks.
Which ones and why?
sorry I'm not used to posting. To me a few seem to hint at narratives they push but won't say directly. Also they purport to know about timing and info they can't possibly know and therefore seem to draw conclusions. Impatience? We're playing a long game here.